November 23, 2023
PATRICIA KARVELAS: James Paterson is the Shadow Home Affairs and Cyber Security Minister, and he's my guest this morning. James, welcome.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning.
KARVELAS: How important is that the international community uses this moment to push for what is a political solution, a lasting end to the violence?
PATERSON: Well, the most important thing, Patricia, is it's a wonderful thing that some of those hostages are being released. Some of the lists of names of those hostages have been published overnight, and that includes a ten month old child, a four year old, their mother and a whole lot of other completely innocent Israeli victims who were taken hostage by Hamas on the 7th of October and who we haven't heard from or seen anything from in more than 40 days now and so I know enormous relief to their families as well as the rest of the world to see some of them released.
KARVELAS: But on the other wider question of where this goes, obviously a four day cease fire, then there can be an extra day if there's more release. That's kind of part of the deal. It's obviously pretty complex. Is that something you hope goes beyond four days?
PATERSON: Well, after these 50 hostages are released, there's at least another 200 or so who we believe were kidnapped and taken. We don't know how many of them are still alive and their continued release would be essential for a continuing ceasefire, because otherwise Israel continues to have a legitimate military objective, which is to remove the threat to its people of Hamas. Hamas carried out those attacks on 7th October and have since said that they intend to repeat it again and again and again and so unless they're willing to free those hostages, it wouldn't surprise me and I would understand if Israel is going to continue its military campaign.
KARVELAS: And then if they're all free, which I absolutely agree is the objective. Everyone wants to see these people returned. The experience has been harrowing and horrendous. What should happen then? Should there be a push for a lasting peace?
PATERSON: Ultimately, what we all want to work towards is a sustainable two state solution, which is secure for the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, and they can live alongside each other in peace, without this constant threat of violence like this being repeated. Personally, I'm sceptical if Hamas remains in charge of the Gaza Strip, that's going to be possible given their stated objective of destroying Israel, given their stated objective of repeated attacks again and again and again. It's going to be very difficult for Israel to accept that risk, that existential risk in perpetuity.
KARVELAS: The Department of Home Affairs has confirmed 860 temporary visas have been approved for Palestinians with connections to Australia from October the 7th. That's just a few of those who so far have made it out of Gaza, though. What sort of support should they get?
PATERSON: Well, first of all, Patricia, I really do welcome the fact that Australian citizens have been able to have left Gaza and come home, as Australian citizens they obviously have an absolute right to come home. And that’s about 60 odd Australian citizens and permanent residents who've done so. This larger cohort is of people that are connected to those Australian citizens in some way, that might be their relatives, for example, and they've been granted visas. To me that sounds like a very large number of visas that have been granted in a very short period of time. And we have to remember, obviously, this is a part of the world in which the Australian government is not on the ground. So I am seeking reassurance from the government that all the normal checks and processes were followed and that no corners were cut in granting of these visas, and particularly the security assessments which often do take quite a significant amount of time, were carried out on this cohort before they come to Australia.
KARVELAS: Are you concerned that corners were cut? Is there any evidence to suggest they were?
PATERSON: Well, Duncan Lewis, the former Director-General of ASIO, testified before Senate estimates in 2019 that the security assessments that you have to undertake for cohorts like this can take months at a time. So, to grant more than 800 visas in just six weeks would be an extraordinary level of efficiency. And I'm certainly not reflecting on ASIO there, but I really hope pressure hasn't been put on them or the Department of Home Affairs to cut corners or do this more quickly than they already would.
KARVELAS: Okay. So, you're saying is there any precedent for doing something so quickly and having the kind of rigour that you're saying should be in it?
PATERSON: Well, the most relevant precedent is the fall of Kabul and the collapse of Afghanistan to the Taliban in which we got hundreds and ultimately thousands of people out quite quickly. But as I understand it, all the normal processes and checks occurred in that instance and many people were evacuated to third countries, including the United Arab Emirates, for example, before they came to Australia, so that those processes could be undertaken. I'm just taking reassurance from the government that this happened in this case as well.
KARVELAS: Just on another issue before we hit the news, Senator, it's been reported a refugee has challenged the Government in the High Court over the new laws which were passed last week. You were part of that. In fact, you pushed for lots of the changes that ended up being adopted. Was it a mistake to rush it through, given we're back in the High Court now?
PATERSON: No, there was no alternative but to rush it through. The alternative would see these people released in the community with no enforceable restrictions at all because the initial visa conditions that the government imposed upon them were not enforceable because the only consequence of breaching a visa was to be put into immigration detention pending your deportation. And of course, the High Court has found these people are not eligible for that because it constitutes indefinite detention. So the choice was no restrictions in the community at all or the best restrictions we can put in place in a short period of time that we had and I'm glad we did that. I'm glad we forced the government to do that, because they initially said they wouldn't do it at all and I'm glad we strengthened it when the government initially said that went as far as they could. But in the end, we produced a bill that the government has described itself as constitutionally sound. And I know they will rigorously defend it in the High Court in this challenge.
KARVELAS: Thank you for your time this morning.
PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS
